24 Justice, Primary Goods and Public Reason

2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Han Shuifa
Keyword(s):  
Public Reason ◽  
Primary Goods

John Rawls

2020 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
John Rawls ◽  
Global Justice ◽  
Public Reason ◽  
Ideal Theory ◽  
Theory Of Justice ◽  
Original Essays ◽  
Introductory Essay ◽  
Primary Goods ◽  
Principles Of Justice ◽  
Domestic Level

This collection of original essays explores major areas of debate inspired by the political philosophy of John Rawls. The volume is divided into ten parts, exploring ten distinct questions: Can Rawls’s conception of public reason offer determinate answers to major questions of justice? Is ideal theory useful or relevant to resolving issues of justice in the nonideal world? Are libertarians correct to criticize Rawls’s work for failing to prioritize economic liberty? Should the problems of distributive justice be understood in terms of luck egalitarian or relational egalitarian assumptions? When institutions aim at equality, what is it that they should seek to equalize—primary goods, capabilities, or welfare? Does Rawls’s theory of justice have the resources to address justice for people who are significantly dependent on others and their caregivers? Is Rawls’s theory adequate for addressing gender injustice? Can or should Rawls’s theory include justice for nonhuman animals? Should the principles of economic justice that hold at the global level be similar to the egalitarian principles of justice that hold at the domestic level? Is Rawls’s theory of global justice too tolerant of nonliberal societies? For each question, there is an introductory essay, providing an overview of the relevant arguments from Rawls’s work and the historical contours of the debate that ensued. Each introductory essay is followed by two essays written by scholars who take opposing positions, moving the discussion forward in a fruitful way.

The perceived conditions for living well: Positive perceptions of primary goods linked with basic psychological needs and wellness

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emma L Bradshaw ◽  
Cody R. DeHaan ◽  
Philip Parker ◽  
Randall Curren ◽  
Jasper Duineveld ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Effect Size ◽  
Well Being ◽  
The United States ◽  
Psychological Needs ◽  
The Philippines ◽  
Need Satisfaction ◽  
Basic Psychological Needs ◽  
Average Effect ◽  
Average Effect Size ◽  
Primary Goods

We integrate Rawls’ (1971/2009, 1993, 2001) concept of primary goods with self-determination theory (SDT; Ryan & Deci, 2017), to examine the link between people’s perceptions of primary goods (i.e., views of society as just and fair), basic psychological need satisfaction, and well-being. In Study 1 (N=762, countries = Australia, the United States, South Africa, India, and the Philippines) and Study 2 (N=1479, groups = ethnic minority, sexual minority, political group, religious group), we used partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) to assess associations between perceptions of primary goods and wellness, and the intermediary role of basic psychological needs. Perceptions of primary goods linked positively to well-being (average effect size = 0.48), and negatively to ill-being (average effect size = -0.46). These associations were strongly mediated by basic psychological needs (average percentage mediated: 53% Study 1 and 68% Study 2). Results signify the importance of primary goods’ perceptions to wellness.

Conclusion

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas I. Thompson
Keyword(s):  
Conflict Resolution ◽  
Public Goods ◽  
Moral Reasoning ◽  
Public Reason ◽  
Public Institutions ◽  
Moral Reason ◽  
Strategic Bargaining ◽  
Canadian Army ◽  
Actual Conflict

Montaigne offers what is perhaps the first historical instance of the now-ubiquitous phrase “public reason.” Whereas contemporary use of this phrase refers to activities of moral reason-giving, Montaigne uses it to refer to the health of public institutions, conventions, and activities that allow parties in potential and actual conflict to negotiate civil peace and other public goods, whether through moral reasoning, strategic bargaining, or other forms of interaction. This chapter engages with two recent instances of Montaignian public reason in action: the local negotiation of “civil alliance” between Jews and Arabs in the lands of the Palestinian Mandate in 1947–1948 and the negotiation of conflict resolution during an armed standoff between the Canadian army and Mohawk warriors outside Montréal, Quebec in the summer of 1990.

Public Reason and Prostitution

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christie Hartley
Keyword(s):  
Sex Work ◽  
State Policy ◽  
Public Reason ◽  
Good Life ◽  
The Good Life ◽  
Conception Of The Good

This chapter critically engages with the “sex work” approach to prostitution and argues that treating “sex work” like any other form of work is neither possible nor compatible with valuing the freedom and equality of women as citizens. Liberals often claim, erroneously, that liberalism’s commitment to a kind of neutrality among competing conceptions of the good life and its commitment to antipaternalism requires either decriminalization or legalization of prostitution. While arguments that rest on a particular conception of the “good” of sex or of the role of sex in a broader conception of the good are illegitimate grounds for state policy, it is argued that there are, nonetheless, good public reason arguments against decriminalization or legalization of prostitution. A defense of the Nordic model is offered.

Integrity and the Case for Restraint

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christie Hartley
Keyword(s):  
Public Reason ◽  
Political Liberalism ◽  
Public Justification ◽  
Moral Ideal ◽  
Democratic Societies

This chapter discusses the concern that exclusive accounts of public reason threaten or undermine the integrity of some religiously oriented citizens in democratic societies. It discusses various notions of integrity that might be claimed to ground such a concern. It is argued that purely formal accounts of integrity that do not distinguish between the integrity of reasonable and unreasonable persons, as specified within political liberalism, cannot underwrite integrity challenges that should concern political liberals. It is further argued that if the inquiry is limited to conceptions of integrity that distinguish between reasonable and unreasonable persons, the supposed burdens persons of faith face are not burdens different from those that all citizens face equally. It is claimed the concern is best understood as a challenge to the account of public justification and the account of public reason as a moral ideal.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document